Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 261 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Ms Tucker suggests we lift economic sanctions on Iraq. Economic sanctions proved to be the most successful weapon against South Africa. Those sanctions started in the 1960s and took until the 1990s to finish, which is 30 years. That is a shame, because the people are carrying the burden. I have been there and spoken to them. They have told me about it.

The question is, what does lifting economic sanctions do? It allows them to re-arm. Pressurising the US to sign on to the International Criminal Court and then pursuing Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity would be useful if Saddam would come to the court, but how do you enforce such a thing?

There have been punitive actions in its corporations that have profited from the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Clearly, certain parts of the equipment are sold for other purposes, but Saddam would use them for creating weapons of mass destruction. (Extension of time granted.)

We then get to full implementation of UN resolutions calling for disarmament of the entire Middle East. I have no beef with that. The issue today is Iraq. If the issue of the UN resolution was of interest, why wasn't it brought to the attention of this place when it was first established?

Give me an option which says we can change this man's behaviour. Give me an option that will work. We have heard the rhetoric-we heard people railing against the war. Everybody should rail against war. Nobody in their right mind wants a war.

Nobody who has seen the effects of war wants war. However, if you have to make a stand, what is the worst outcome? To abandon all principle and say, "We will give in simply because we cannot find another way"I believe is immoral. I think it then goes to the condition that, because we have done nothing, evil will triumph. Evil is triumphing all over the world today. If we give in on this one, what do we do then? What do we do about North Korea? What do we do about nuclear proliferation?

The dilemma in all of this is that none of the other solutions have worked. We have had 12 years of other solutions and all we have seen is the prevarication of somebody who knows how to play the game. I believe we must take a stand. Part of that stand may well be the position that says, "Yes, we are serious about it this time. It has taken 17 resolutions to get there but, as a world, we are now serious."

I hope we do it as a world. If the world chooses not to do it, what do we do? Do we retreat behind the barriers-the walls we want to put up-so we are not part of that? We are part of the world and, some days, we are part of an ugly world-Bali proved that.

I do not have an alternative to this. I wish somebody would give me an alternative that works beyond some of the items on the agenda. Churchill said that jaw jaw is better than war war, and he was right. It is better to talk and try to work this out, but what do you do when there is nothing left for you to do? Give me a solution that works. Give me something that will remove Saddam Hussein and allow what should be an incredibly prosperous country to flourish, because it is an incredibly wealthy country.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .